Re: Extending amcheck to check toast size and compression

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Extending amcheck to check toast size and compression
Date: 2021-11-04 14:53:13
Message-ID: CA+Tgmob+LEp9tPJC3KteEdgk40WzSXyVnfuDZEfZkjEHZ4Ve7Q@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Nov 3, 2021 at 6:56 PM Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> Done that way.

I agree with what others have said: this looks fine.

But, is it plausible to add test coverage for the new checks, or is
that going to be too much of a pain?

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bharath Rupireddy 2021-11-04 14:58:48 Re: should we enable log_checkpoints out of the box?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2021-11-04 13:54:07 Re: Missing include <openssl/x509.h> in be-secure-openssl.c?